fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Whats interesting to me in this "debate", is that
> not one of the right-tards on here (Reggie the
> Dumbfuck...et al) have even acknowledged that a
> "national leader" might exercise better judgment
> than putting figurative crosshairs on political
> opponents...that it MIGHT not be the best idea she
> ever had."

Here, let me spell it out for you. The only debate involving her is being brought up as an irrelevant connection to the event no one knows the facts to other than

1. a nut case shot 20 odd people and killed 6

2. he was a nut case

3. it was premeditated (he left a note)

So. Seeing that in a relevant discussion of what we know - how again does Palin and what she did or didn't do matter at this point? Bzzt. Zero. No connection, no cause, no effect. And for most of us, not really relevant to discussing sad sick individual. But you go right on beating the dead horse Mr. 'Last Word' Fairy. Feel free.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 2. you are always coming in with that to try
> and
> > discredit/intimidate me
>
>
>
> {Insert crybaby pic here.}

Statement of fact eesh - nothing to whine about. You made a point, I am noting why I believe and mention it. Are you denying that you do it? No. I think the only one whining here is you.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Statement of fact eesh - nothing to whine about.
> You made a point, I am noting why I believe and
> mention it. Are you denying that you do it? No. I
> think the only one whining here is you.



Registered "Last Word" Voter at it again.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No connection,

If the Palin camp felt no connection, why did they immediately pull the graphic off her website? Why didn't they just leave it there?

Now if this isn't the face of a right-wing Tea Bagger, I don't know what is! Yeah, not so much. He looks like a lunatic, not an idealogue. That's one of the scariest pictures I've ever seen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > No connection,
>
> If the Palin camp felt no connection, why did they
> immediately pull the graphic off her website? Why
> didn't they just leave it there?

Probably because MSM was already ramping up with stories on possible connections to her map. In all honesty I would have left it there - since it is a widely distributed graphic on most lefty web sites. They probably figured it would stop redirect traffic as well to their site. Who knows though - but just removing the graphic really doesn't mean anything. It isn't like folks didn't know it was there.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You think you're smart using words like erroneous
> and etymologically, don't you?
>
> HINT: Using words that have more than three
> syllables doesn't make you less stupid.


However, using 'words' that mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say (i.e. 'irregardless') does?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Whats interesting to me in this "debate", is
> that
> > not one of the right-tards on here (Reggie the
> > Dumbfuck...et al) have even acknowledged that a
> > "national leader" might exercise better
> judgment
> > than putting figurative crosshairs on political
> > opponents...that it MIGHT not be the best idea
> she
> > ever had."
>
> Here, let me spell it out for you. The only debate
> involving her is being brought up as an irrelevant
> connection to the event no one knows the facts to
> other than
>
> 1. a nut case shot 20 odd people and killed 6
>
> 2. he was a nut case
>
> 3. it was premeditated (he left a note)
>
> So. Seeing that in a relevant discussion of what
> we know - how again does Palin and what she did or
> didn't do matter at this point? Bzzt. Zero. No
> connection, no cause, no effect. And for most of
> us, not really relevant to discussing sad sick
> individual. But you go right on beating the dead
> horse Mr. 'Last Word' Fairy. Feel free.


One question for you REGGIE-TARD. Simple one, even.

Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets on her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's part?

Just use either 1 or 2.

(told ya it'd be simple)

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

retardeesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You think you're smart using words like
> erroneous
> > and etymologically, don't you?
> >
> > HINT: Using words that have more than three
> > syllables doesn't make you less stupid.
>
>
> However, using 'words' that mean the exact
> opposite of what you are trying to say (i.e.
> 'irregardless') does?

Yeah, he's kind of on a roll today isn't he.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> possible connections to her map.

LOL, exactly. They knew the danger of publishing such a stupid and irresponsible graphic, along with all the other violent rhetoric. And they had an "oh shit" moment when someone finally decided to act out on it.

retardeesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You think you're smart using words like
> erroneous
> > and etymologically, don't you?
> >
> > HINT: Using words that have more than three
> > syllables doesn't make you less stupid.
>
>
> However, using 'words' that mean the exact
> opposite of what you are trying to say (i.e.
> 'irregardless') does?

At least I was smart enough to figure out how to register a nic, Pattie boy.. LOL

you can too, IRREGARDLESS of your syphilitic stupidity. ;)

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One question for you REGGIE-TARD. Simple one,
> even.
>
> Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets on
> her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's
> part?
>
> Just use either 1 or 2.
>
> (told ya it'd be simple)

1. Good - it brought a lot of attention to their website.

The reality though is, it was their judgment to use it - as long as they left it up there, it obviously didn't matter that much until MSM tried to paint cause and effect to an event that has nothing to do with her at this point. Would I use that graphic myself? Maybe not - but with her background and persona, it is understandable why she did.

You are trying to argue something like 'guns kill' that Vince(1) was always fond of. Well, the gun doesn't kill unless someone is using it. Or the arguments that violent cartoons make kids do violent things - so maybe he was really watching too many old violent cartoons or tv shows and that is what triggered the episode. So then, you might ask if showing violent cartoons is in bad judgment huh?

Take something 'gray', and trying to make it 'black and white'... really pointless here. But keep knocking yourself out.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > possible connections to her map.
>
> LOL, exactly. They knew the danger of publishing
> such a stupid and irresponsible graphic, along
> with all the other violent rhetoric. And they had
> an "oh shit" moment when someone finally decided
> to act out on it.

So.. MSM knew the danger? Because that graphic has been on her site for quite a while. Like I said, even with MSM stupidity, I would have probably left it up. Taking it off the site made it more of an issue than it probably was.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> LOL, exactly. They knew the danger of publishing
> such a stupid and irresponsible graphic, along
> with all the other violent rhetoric. And they had
> an "oh shit" moment when someone finally decided
> to act out on it.

What violent rhetoric? So you think the map caused this guy to shoot a Congresswoman? Really? You are that stupid? Wacth out for those black helos!

BTW, tin foil sale at Safeway this week.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One question for you REGGIE-TARD. Simple one,
> > even.
> >
> > Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets
> on
> > her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on
> Palin's
> > part?
> >
> > Just use either 1 or 2.
> >
> > (told ya it'd be simple)
>
> 1. Good - it brought a lot of attention to their
> website.
>
> The reality though is, it was their judgment to
> use it - as long as they left it up there, it
> obviously didn't matter that much until MSM tried
> to paint cause and effect to an event that has
> nothing to do with her at this point. Would I use
> that graphic myself? Maybe not - but with her
> background and persona, it is understandable why
> she did.
>
> You are trying to argue something like 'guns kill'
> that Vince(1) was always fond of. Well, the gun
> doesn't kill unless someone is using it. Or the
> arguments that violent cartoons make kids do
> violent things - so maybe he was really watching
> too many old violent cartoons or tv shows and that
> is what triggered the episode. So then, you might
> ask if showing violent cartoons is in bad judgment
> huh?
>
> Take something 'gray', and trying to make it
> 'black and white'... really pointless here. But
> keep knocking yourself out.



OMFG Registered Voter just said that the crosshairs were a good idea, and that even negative attention is good for the website.

This argument isn't about being anti-2nd Amendment, it is about your beloved Tea Party planting seeds of violence in their faithful followers.

Abstract thinking RV, you might try it sometime.

Did you see that mug shot of the shooter he looks like the guy from the Addams Family
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> 1. Good - it brought a lot of attention to their
> website.


> You are trying to argue something like 'guns kill'
> that Vince(1) was always fond of. Well, the gun
> doesn't kill unless someone is using it. Or the
> arguments that violent cartoons make kids do
> violent things - so maybe he was really watching
> too many old violent cartoons or tv shows and that
> is what triggered the episode. So then, you might
> ask if showing violent cartoons is in bad judgment
> huh?

I'm not trying to argue anything. YOU ARE THOUGH. I simply made an observation, endured your ridiculous attempts at twisting my observation into a bunch of buffoonish straw man arguments, and finally just asked you a simple question.

You can blabber on all you want about "violent cartoons" and "black, grey and white". AS I said originally, we don't know what motivated the loon.

But thanks for letting us all know to what ends you would support your political choices...I think we all learned something.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 06:42PM by fairfaxdude.

Insurrectionism Timeline
E-mail Print

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association's contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become "tyrannical." The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:

June 26, 2008—The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is decided by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling. The opinion not only endorses the National Rifle Association’s “individual right†interpretation of the Second Amendment; it also affirms that one of the purposes of the right is to “assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia†as a safeguard against tyranny.†The NRA’s amicus brief in the case had argued that “the Second Amendment refers to the utility of an armed population in preventing government tyranny.â€

July 27, 2008—Jim Adkisson shoots and kills two people at a progressive church in Knoxville, Tennessee, wounding two. Adkisson calls it “a symbolic killing†because he really “wanted to kill…every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book,†but was unable to gain access to them.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

February 5, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts an hour-long special on Fox called “We Surround Them,†a “grassroots effort to wake up our Nation's leaders and let them know what many, if not most, Americans truly believe in and stand for.â€

February 20, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts a program that games a 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect.†It involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government.

Unreal.

Do you morons actually believe that the crosshairs on Palin's website actually provoked this guy to go on a rampage?

A simple yes or no will do.

That way we will all be able to tell for certain who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70. For some of you, it seems to be confirmed already.

Yes. There is a connection between inflammatory rhetoric, freely available fire arms and unstable people incited to violence. If you dont believe that you are the one with the IQ below 70.

cuda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh, see after reading all your posts, I thought
> this was the let's make the most tenuous and
> asinine arguments in supoort of an idiotic premise
> thread.

+1

Probably the best way to sum up the four pages of BS here.

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. There is a connection between inflammatory
> rhetoric, freely available fire arms and unstable
> people incited to violence. If you dont believe
> that you are the one with the IQ below 70.

So, that's a yes, you believe the crosshairs on Palin's website incited this guy? I just want to be clear here, because you don't seem to be.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unreal.
>
> Do you morons actually believe that the crosshairs
> on Palin's website actually provoked this guy to
> go on a rampage?
>
> A simple yes or no will do.
>
> That way we will all be able to tell for certain
> who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70.
> For some of you, it seems to be confirmed already.

I don't think anyone knows that answer, but I'd doubt it. I think Loughner was way more consumed with wierd conspiracy websites and goofy fucking conscience dreaming sites than political ones. Your question isn't even all that interesting though. The question I'll still ask is:

Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets on
her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's part?

Just use either 1 or 2.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 06:55PM by fairfaxdude.

Here's the mugshot.
Attachments:

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unreal.
>
> Do you morons actually believe that the crosshairs
> on Palin's website actually provoked this guy to
> go on a rampage?
>
> A simple yes or no will do.
>
> That way we will all be able to tell for certain
> who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70.
> For some of you, it seems to be confirmed already.

+1.

Although yes the cross hairs were not exactly the most thought out design, attributing this attack to them is asinine. If the shoe was on the other foot and FOX news was saying this, libs would be having a fucking field day. This was just a deeply disturbed individual acting on his own crazy thoughts.

Where did this Capt. Obvious jackass come from?
Attachments:

Where is the political upside of using crosshairs on a political ad? Where is the upside of saying you will use 2nd Amendment Remedies if an election doesn't go your way? There is none! It's grossly irresponsible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2011/01/10/left-continues-to-attack-conservatives-over-giffords-shooting/

breaking news Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2011/01/10/left-
> continues-to-attack-conservatives-over-giffords-sh
> ooting/



That source is not trustworthy as it is a fucking blog.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unreal.
> >
> > Do you morons actually believe that the
> crosshairs
> > on Palin's website actually provoked this guy
> to
> > go on a rampage?
> >
> > A simple yes or no will do.
> >
> > That way we will all be able to tell for
> certain
> > who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70.
>
> > For some of you, it seems to be confirmed
> already.
>
> I don't think anyone knows that answer, but I'd
> doubt it. I think Loughner was way more consumed
> with wierd conspiracy websites and goofy fucking
> conscience dreaming sites than political ones.
> Your question isn't even all that interesting
> though. The question I'll still ask is:
>
> Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets
> on
> her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's
> part?
>
> Just use either 1 or 2.


Exceptionally bad judgement.

Its all well and good to incite violence and use inflammatory rhetoric. But when Someone actually follows through on that suggestion, takes action of a violent nature then the right wing media cant pull back and say, "we had nothing to do with it it was an isolated incident and nothing to do with us" on the one hand and then using violent imagery on the other.

another case in point.

March 21-22, 2009—Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) states that she wants residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.â€


March 9, 2009—NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris writes in an editorial published at WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?â€

March 11, 2009—NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference and announces that “Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.â€

The Right wing, republicans and conservatives CANNOT use violent imagery then excuse themselves from liability when it is taken to heart by the extreme or unstable amongst them.

tedf1877 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unreal.
> >
> > Do you morons actually believe that the
> crosshairs
> > on Palin's website actually provoked this guy
> to
> > go on a rampage?
> >
> > A simple yes or no will do.
> >
> > That way we will all be able to tell for
> certain
> > who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70.
>
> > For some of you, it seems to be confirmed
> already.
>
> +1.
>
> Although yes the cross hairs were not exactly the
> most thought out design, attributing this attack
> to them is asinine. If the shoe was on the other
> foot and FOX news was saying this, libs would be
> having a fucking field day. This was just a deeply
> disturbed individual acting on his own crazy
> thoughts.


except that there is a history of the right wing media using this type of violent language and imagery that incites to violence. From the NRA, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin to sitting members of Congress. Its all spelled out here.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

> Yes. There is a connection between inflammatory
> rhetoric,

YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A GREAT REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.

>freely available fire arms

THAT'S THE WAY OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AND INTEND BE.
GET USED TO IT.
IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE NOMATTER HOW MUCH YOU COMPLAIN.

> "and unstable people incited to violence."

YOU MEAN LIBERAL LOONS LIKE YOURSELF WHO JUSTIFY/ BLAME MURDER
ON INFLAMATORY RHETORIC ?

> "If you dont believe that you are the one with the IQ below 70."

I'M STARTING TO WONDER IF YOUR IQ IS A NEGATIVE (-) NUMBER.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unreal.
> >
> > Do you morons actually believe that the
> crosshairs
> > on Palin's website actually provoked this guy
> to
> > go on a rampage?
> >
> > A simple yes or no will do.
> >
> > That way we will all be able to tell for
> certain
> > who is coming to the forum with an IQ below 70.
>
> > For some of you, it seems to be confirmed
> already.
>
> I don't think anyone knows that answer, but I'd
> doubt it. I think Loughner was way more consumed
> with wierd conspiracy websites and goofy fucking
> conscience dreaming sites than political ones.
> Your question isn't even all that interesting
> though. The question I'll still ask is:
>
> Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets
> on
> her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's
> part?
>
> Just use either 1 or 2.

It was neither. It didn't have any consequence or meaning until morons looking for a story decided to give it a meaning. It is a stupid tenuous proposition.

It is as retarded as saying that the President implicitly supports acts of violence to impact domestic politics because he kicked off his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.

I realize this might be tough for you to comprehend as it probably isn't the story running 24/7 on huffpo or msnbc.

Someone always dies in a Revolution. Maybe those advocating one should remember that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

noi'sap Wrote:

>
> YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A GREAT
> REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
> TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.
>

The Victims were democrats


> >freely available fire arms
>
> THAT'S THE WAY OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AND INTEND
> BE.
> GET USED TO IT.
> IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE NOMATTER HOW MUCH YOU
> COMPLAIN.
>


complain about unstable people with access to fire arms? I will complain about that as any sane person would.
>



> YOU MEAN LIBERAL LOONS LIKE YOURSELF WHO JUSTIFY/
> BLAME MURDER
> ON INFLAMATORY RHETORIC ?
>

YOu have THAT backwards. NIce try though.
> > "If you dont believe that you are the one with
> the IQ below 70."
>
> I'M STARTING TO WONDER IF YOUR IQ IS A NEGATIVE
> (-) NUMBER.
I have a high enough IQ to speak two languages and know when my CAPS lock is on or off.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:

>
> It was neither. It didn't have any consequence or
> meaning until morons looking for a story decided
> to give it a meaning. It is a stupid tenuous
> proposition.
>
> It is as retarded as saying that the President
> implicitly supports acts of violence to impact
> domestic politics because he kicked off his
> political career in the living room of a domestic
> terrorist.
>
> I realize this might be tough for you to
> comprehend as it probably isn't the story running
> 24/7 on huffpo or msnbc.

It was just one link in a long chain of Violent imagery and language employed by the Right wing media to set their agenda. "If we dont get our way then we will use 'Might is RIGHT' as our justification"

Capt. Obvious Wrote:

> > Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets
> > on
> > her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on
> Palin's
> > part?
> >
> > Just use either 1 or 2.
>
> It was neither. It didn't have any consequence or
> meaning until morons looking for a story decided
> to give it a meaning. It is a stupid tenuous
> proposition.
>
> It is as retarded as saying that the President
> implicitly supports acts of violence to impact
> domestic politics because he kicked off his
> political career in the living room of a domestic
> terrorist.
>
> I realize this might be tough for you to
> comprehend as it probably isn't the story running
> 24/7 on huffpo or msnbc.


The question didn't contain any reference to consequence or meaning, so I'll consider your answer non-responsive. You might want to re-read and try again. It really IS a very simple question.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
>
> > > Was putting "crosshairs" over political
> targets
> > > on
> > > her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on
> > Palin's
> > > part?
> > >
> > > Just use either 1 or 2.
> >
> > It was neither. It didn't have any consequence
> or
> > meaning until morons looking for a story
> decided
> > to give it a meaning. It is a stupid tenuous
> > proposition.
> >
> > It is as retarded as saying that the President
> > implicitly supports acts of violence to impact
> > domestic politics because he kicked off his
> > political career in the living room of a
> domestic
> > terrorist.
> >
> > I realize this might be tough for you to
> > comprehend as it probably isn't the story
> running
> > 24/7 on huffpo or msnbc.
>
>
> The question didn't contain any reference to
> consequence or meaning, so I'll consider your
> answer non-responsive. You might want to re-read
> and try again. It really IS a very simple
> question.

Sure. Nice tactic, Saul. Consider my answer any way you will. Your lack of coherent thought processes have been more than adequately demonstrated throughout this thread.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone always dies in a Revolution. Maybe those
> advocating one should remember that.

Maybe you should tell your friends that......



Pay close attention at 5:50.

FairyFagsDood wrote :
--------------------------------------------
> "Was putting "crosshairs" over political targets on
> her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on Palin's part?
>
>Just use either 1 or 2.

ANSWER :

1. GOOD

Why you say?
Because it made the liberal nut-bag conspiracy theorist come out and
voice their retarded logic so all the rest of us can have a GOOD laugh
at their expense.

So tell us, how does this all tie into racism and republicans not
liking the president because he is "black" ?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> >
> > > > Was putting "crosshairs" over political
> > targets
> > > > on
> > > > her website 1) GOOD or 2) BAD judgment on
> > > Palin's
> > > > part?
> > > >
> > > > Just use either 1 or 2.
> > >
> > > It was neither. It didn't have any
> consequence
> > or
> > > meaning until morons looking for a story
> > decided
> > > to give it a meaning. It is a stupid tenuous
> > > proposition.
> > >
> > > It is as retarded as saying that the
> President
> > > implicitly supports acts of violence to
> impact
> > > domestic politics because he kicked off his
> > > political career in the living room of a
> > domestic
> > > terrorist.
> > >
> > > I realize this might be tough for you to
> > > comprehend as it probably isn't the story
> > running
> > > 24/7 on huffpo or msnbc.
> >
> >
> > The question didn't contain any reference to
> > consequence or meaning, so I'll consider your
> > answer non-responsive. You might want to
> re-read
> > and try again. It really IS a very simple
> > question.
>
> Sure. Nice tactic, Saul. Consider my answer any
> way you will. Your lack of coherent thought
> processes have been more than adequately
> demonstrated throughout this thread.

Hey, you were the one who made some unfounded inference into the question and tried to play it off.

So I'll ask it a different way: If YOU were the person who owned the site, with your name and professional credibility attached to it, would YOU use "crosshairs" and "RELOAD" as your graphics of choice, to get your point across, or would there be ANY other options that you might consider using?

I think I've made it clear that I see no connection to the events in Tucson, so you don't have to play the "end-around" game anymore. No gotchas here, just a simple question about professional judgement. Capisce?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

dooDsgaFyriaF Wrote:

> So tell us, how does this all tie into racism and
> republicans not
> liking the president because he is "black" ?

you want 3 examples?

September 22, 2008—The National Rifle Association launches its GunBanObama website, which predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, “if elected…would be the most anti-gun president in American history.†The website is part of a $15 million NRA campaign to discredit Obama.

December 9, 2008—FBI teams investigating the murder of white supremacist James Cumming, 29, a resident of Belfast, Maine, find supplies for a crude radiological dispersal dervice and other explosives in his home. Cumming's wife, who shot him to death after being abused by him repeatedly, explains, "His intentions were to construct a dirty bomb and take it to Washington to kill President Obama. He was planning to hide it in the undercarriage of our moter home."

April 4, 2009—Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three police officers responding to a 911 call to his home in Pittsburgh. His friend Edward Perkovic tells reporters that Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on its way†and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.†Perkovic also commented that Poplawski carried out the shooting because “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna’ stand by what his forefathers told him to do.â€



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 07:28PM by pas'ion.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unreal.
>
> Do you morons actually believe that the crosshairs
> on Palin's website actually provoked this guy to
> go on a rampage?
>
> A simple yes or no will do.

No, I don't know if it provoked the guy, and NO, I DON'T hold Palin responsible for what happened.

But when political discourse descends into things like crosshairs, Angle's "second amendment remedies", Michelle Bachmann's comment that people should be "armed and dangerous" and invitations to shoot weapons at an anti-Giffords event, they should not be surprised when someone acts out. Violent anti-govt. rhetoric is a big part of the right-wing agenda, this is the kind of thing they've been inciting all along. But now they're acting like THEY are the victims.

Maybe they don't need to come out with an apology, but their irresponsible language certainly shouldn't be defended.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hey, you were the one who made some unfounded
> inference into the question and tried to play it
> off.

There is no unfounded inference, and am hardly trying to play anything off. Project much?

> So I'll ask it a different way: If YOU were
> the person who owned the site, with your name and
> professional credibility attached to it, would YOU
> use "crosshairs" and "RELOAD" as your graphics of
> choice, to get your point across, or would there
> be ANY other options that you might consider
> using?

She has no professional credibility and is simply a fundraising puppet. The term "target" is frequently used in political circles on both sides of the aisle. This is hardly anything new. If it was such a reprehensible act, why did it take all these months to get criticised?

> I think I've made it clear that I see no
> connection to the events in Tucson, so you don't
> have to play the "end-around" game anymore. No
> gotchas here, just a simple question about
> professional judgement. Capisce?

You claim you see "no connection," but for some reason you just can't quite stop bringing it up?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 07:36PM by Capt. Obvious.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I smell a deadbeat dad, 3x drunk driver in this
> > thread.
>
>
> HAHAHHA...his Tapout is tapped out.
>
> FIST or be fisted= his motto.

lol....My .sig is about to change.

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> noi'sap Wrote:
>
> >
> > YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A GREAT
> > REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
> > TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.
> >
>
> The Victims were democrats
>
And, with the exception of Giffords, how exactly would the shooter know that??

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Violent anti-govt. rhetoric is a big part of the
> right-wing agenda, this is the kind of thing
> they've been inciting all along.

One more time for you. Watch at 6:30 this time....



Oh, and when the left leaders start condemning things like VP candidate effigies in nooses, let me know.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, and when the left leaders start condemning
> things like VP candidate effigies in nooses, let
> me know.


Palin, Bachmann, and Angle are national political figures, not goofy people at an obscure protest.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pas'ion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > noi'sap Wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A GREAT
> > > REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
> > > TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.
> > >
> >
> > The Victims were democrats
> >
> And, with the exception of Giffords, how exactly
> would the shooter know that??


how do you know what the shooter did and didnt know?

September 22, 2008—The National Rifle Association launches its GunBanObama website, which predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, “if elected…would be the most anti-gun president in American history.†The website is part of a $15 million NRA campaign to discredit Obama.

IRRELEVANT.

> "December 9, 2008—FBI teams investigating the murder of white
> supremacist James Cumming, 29, a resident of Belfast, Maine,
> find supplies for a crude radiological dispersal dervice and
> other explosives in his home. Cumming's wife, who shot him to
> death after being abused by him repeatedly, explains, "His
> intentions were to construct a dirty bomb and take it to
> Washington to kill President Obama.

SAYS THE BITCH WHO SHOT AND KILLED A MAN FOR "ABUSING" HER.
IRRELEVANT.

> "He was planning to hide it in the undercarriage of our moter home."

STUPID BITCH CAN'T EVEN SPELL "MOTOR".
MAYBE SOME LUCKY SPOOK WILL BE HER NEXT CATCH.
THEN SHE WILL REALLY SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE ABUSED.
WITH A BONUS ALL EXPENSES PAID CONSTANT WHITE-GUILT TRIP HE WILL PUT HER ON.

> April 4, 2009—Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three
> police officers responding to a 911 call to his home in Pittsburgh.
> His friend Edward Perkovic tells reporters that Poplawski feared
> "the Obama gun ban tha's on its way" and "didn’t like our rights
> being infringed upon." Perkovic also commented that Poplawski
> carried out the shooting because "if anyone tried to take his
> firearms, he was gonna' stand by what his forefathers told him to do."

IRRELEVANT !

YOU - ZERO (0)
ME - THREE (3)

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Hey, you were the one who made some unfounded
> > inference into the question and tried to play
> it
> > off.
>
> There is no unfounded inference, and am hardly
> trying to play anything off. Project much?

I wont repeat myself. I think you were clear..."no consequence or meaning".
>
> > So I'll ask it a different way: If YOU
> were
> > the person who owned the site, with your name
> and
> > professional credibility attached to it, would
> YOU
> > use "crosshairs" and "RELOAD" as your graphics
> of
> > choice, to get your point across, or would
> there
> > be ANY other options that you might consider
> > using?
>
> She has no professional credibility and is simply
> a fundraising puppet. The term "target" is
> frequently used in political circles on both sides
> of the aisle. This is hardly anything new. If it
> was such a reprehensible act, why did it take all
> these months to get criticised?

"target" is used everywhere---sales, fundraising, business planning, etc etc...as well as politics. Really not my point. But you had fun obfuscating, and we all noticed. Graphical "Crosshairs" is not synonymous with the word "target". Nice try, though.
>
> > I think I've made it clear that I see no
> > connection to the events in Tucson, so you
> don't
> > have to play the "end-around" game anymore. No
> > gotchas here, just a simple question about
> > professional judgement. Capisce?
>
> You claim you see "no connection," but for some
> reason you just can't quite stop bringing it up?

It was a simple observation an hour ago, that derived into an even simpler question. I think you've answered it, by not answering it. It really had nothing to do with Tucson, but rather the state of the thread as I read it. But thanks for playing along.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

July 15, 2009—Katherine Crabill, a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the state’s 99th District makes headlines by calling on Americans to resist the course President Obama has set for the country. Appearing at a “Tea Party†rally, Crabill quotes a 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then states, “We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.†This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.â€

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Typical RV tactics. Anytime the other right
> wingers join in like Alias, Wingnut and mcsmack . . .

wingnut is a rightwingnut?

yeefuckinghaw

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pas'ion Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > noi'sap Wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A
> GREAT
> > > > REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
> > > > TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Victims were democrats
> > >
> > And, with the exception of Giffords, how
> exactly
> > would the shooter know that??
>
>
> how do you know what the shooter did and didnt
> know?

Answering a question with a question = typical fail.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wont repeat myself.

Wow, I guess there is a first time for everyting.

> "target" is used everywhere---sales, fundraising,
> business planning, etc etc...as well as politics.
> Really not my point. But you had fun obfuscating,
> and we all noticed. Graphical "Crosshairs" is not
> synonymous with the word "target". Nice try,
> though.

You really are the only one trying to rationalize irrational thoughts.

> It was a simple observation an hour ago, that
> derived into an even simpler question. I think
> you've answered it, by not answering it. It really
> had nothing to do with Tucson, but rather the
> state of the thread as I read it. But thanks for
> playing along.

State of the thread as you read it? This thread is nothing but BS conjecture, innuendo and tenuous links to support a flimsy premise.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pas'ion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ITRADE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > pas'ion Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > noi'sap Wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > YEAH BECAUSE INFLAMATORY RHETORIC IS A
> > GREAT
> > > > > REASON FOR CRAZY LIBERALS
> > > > > TO GO NUTS WITH A GUN AND MURDER PEOPLE.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Victims were democrats
> > > >
> > > And, with the exception of Giffords, how
> > exactly
> > > would the shooter know that??
> >
> >
> > how do you know what the shooter did and didnt
> > know?
>
> Answering a question with a question = typical
> fail.


There is a constant and pervasive use of Threatening and violent language and imagery utilized by the right wing media. It's bullying at its worst and insidious.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:

>
> Wow, I guess there is a first time for everyting.

snarky worthless comment

> You really are the only one trying to rationalize
> irrational thoughts.

Irrational rejoinder

> State of the thread as you read it? This thread
> is nothing but BS conjecture, innuendo and tenuous
> links to support a flimsy premise.

But it pulled you out of a 2 month hibernation. LOL.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 08:06PM by fairfaxdude.

No fan of Palin, but let us be fair here:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gunâ€

Obama: “Get in Their Faces!â€

Obama: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!â€

Obama: “Hit Back Twice As Hardâ€

Obama: “We talk to these folks…so I know whose ass to kick.“

Obama: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combatâ€

Obama: “It’s time to Fight for it.â€

Obama: “Punish your enemies.â€

Obama: “I’m itching for a fight.â€

BOTH SIDES PLAY UP THE RHETORIC!

Palin has as much to do with this as Marilyn Manson had to do with Columbine.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Judging from the venom you used to spit out when
> you first came to this site under your current
> name and "Birdlover", you make it painfully
> obvious you don't like having a black man in the
> Oval Office. I would think the FBI should be
> concerned with right wing racists like yourself.


eesh, inflammatory speech such as this, is outrageous, reckless and extremely dangerous.

It is exactly this kind of rhetoric that leads to killing and possible dismemberment. I’m feeling the urge right now.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> retardeesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > eesh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > You think you're smart using words like
> > erroneous
> > > and etymologically, don't you?
> > >
> > > HINT: Using words that have more than three
> > > syllables doesn't make you less stupid.
> >
> >
> > However, using 'words' that mean the exact
> > opposite of what you are trying to say (i.e.
> > 'irregardless') does?
>
> At least I was smart enough to figure out how to
> register a nic, Pattie boy.. LOL
>
> you can too, IRREGARDLESS of your syphilitic
> stupidity. ;)
Attachments:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,†Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl."

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Now the politicians are already on the media stating they plan to bring back the assualt weapons ban. Guess I will need to go shopping tomorrow. Kiss the 2nd goodbye because of some looney nut job.

How does a Glock 19 constitute an assault weapon?

Dane Bramage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a
> gun,†Obama said in Philadelphia last night.
> “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly
> like a good brawl."


Totally irresponsible comment made in 2008. If Obama continued to make knife and gun references into 2011, I'd have a real problem.

Sarah Palin has blood on her hands..may she forever linked to the people that died and were injured..

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Judging from the venom you used to spit out
> when
> > you first came to this site under your current
> > name and "Birdlover", you make it painfully
> > obvious you don't like having a black man in
> the
> > Oval Office. I would think the FBI should be
> > concerned with right wing racists like
> yourself.
>
>
> eesh, inflammatory speech such as this, is
> outrageous, reckless and extremely dangerous.
>
> It is exactly this kind of rhetoric that leads to
> killing and possible dismemberment. I’m feeling
> the urge right now.


Alias,

You should be more cautious concerning what you jest about on here in regards to the President. I have read about people getting in trouble for much less.

'SNAFU', did you just threaten the PRESIDENT ?

*CONCERNED LEGAL CITIZEN* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'SNAFU', did you just threaten the PRESIDENT ?
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dane Bramage Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring
> a
> > gun,†Obama said in Philadelphia last night.
> > “Because from what I understand, folks in
> Philly
> > like a good brawl."
>
>
> Totally irresponsible comment made in 2008. If
> Obama continued to make knife and gun references
> into 2011, I'd have a real problem.

It wasn't that irresponsible, it was a figure of speech and anyone with a brain knows what it means.

Obama or Palin, it doesn't matter. We shouldn't start having to "watch what we say" because some shit-fer-brains decides to kill a bunch of people. Nor should we have to endure more homeland security hysteria and anti-gun and anti-speech bullshit. Nor should we use this crap as an excuse to point fingers at people who have no control over what happened the other day.

Everyone needs to take a breath and sleep off the hysteria. All through history public officials occassionally get attacked by various people for various reasons, it's part of the risk that comes with the job. But ever since 9/11 we all act like a bunch of headless chickens everytime something scary happens.

It was awful, but it wasn't as bad as JFK getting shot, and we somehow managed to live through that. Reagan, too. It's bad, but it's not the end of the world.

What's really telling about this whole debate is that this all came from the Sheriff making that statement about how crazy rhetoric has gotten, he didn't name a person or a party or anything, just mentioned his thoughts on the state of political discourse in this country recently and that he thought that may have contributed to this maniac deciding to try to assassinate a politician, and the right wing media immediately went on the defensive because--guess what?--they know exactly what they've been doing the past few years.

Whether or not it actually directly contributed to this incident is almost beside the point when you understand that.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > eesh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > I smell a deadbeat dad, 3x drunk driver in
> this
> > > thread.
> >
> >
> > HAHAHHA...his Tapout is tapped out.
> >
> > FIST or be fisted= his motto.
>
> lol....My .sig is about to change.



Funny. Fairfaxdude says it yet you cite me for the quote. Dumbass.

HERE THE LIBS GO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now the politicians are already on the media
> stating they plan to bring back the assualt
> weapons ban. Guess I will need to go shopping
> tomorrow. Kiss the 2nd goodbye because of some
> looney nut job.


ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does a Glock 19 constitute an assault weapon?




It isn't, but if the assault weapons ban was brought back like it was under the Clinton administration, pistols would be limited to 10 round magazines.

Whether a specific pistol is affected by stricter gun laws or not, anti-gun lobbyists take advantage of these shootings to push for any law that makes it more difficult to purchase a firearm.

Just look at California, they banned rifles that shoot .50 BMG. I don't know of many criminals on the street that can afford a rifle of that caliber, but because of random shootings the anti-gun crowd bans anything they can.

*CONCERNED LEGAL CITIZEN* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'SNAFU', did you just threaten the PRESIDENT ?


No, I think he was encouraging me to threaten the president, which makes him guilty of incendiary speech and possibly an accessory to capital murder should I act on his suggestion.

Arrest SNAFU before I go "postal" all over Washington!

I think we can all agree that the general public needn't have high capacity magazines.

Common sense goes along way.

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we can all agree that the general public
> needn't have high capacity magazines.
>
> Common sense goes along way.

That's another subject, Stinky.

What we're talking about here is how to control speech so an atheist never ever again picks up a gun and starts shooting people.
Attachments:

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we can all agree that the general public
> needn't have high capacity magazines.
>
> Common sense goes along way.




And what do you Stinkfist, consider to be a high capacity magazine?

eesh Wrote:

>
> And what do you Stinkfist, consider to be a high
> capacity magazine?


Anything that is excessive for the rare use of self-defense, but optimal for massacres...

Hard to put a number on it, bro.

Alias Wrote:

>
> What we're talking about here is how to control
> speech so an atheist never ever again picks up a
> gun and starts shooting people.


Lol

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > eesh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > I smell a deadbeat dad, 3x drunk driver in
> > this
> > > > thread.
> > >
> > >
> > > HAHAHHA...his Tapout is tapped out.
> > >
> > > FIST or be fisted= his motto.
> >
> > lol....My .sig is about to change.
>
>
>
> Funny. Fairfaxdude says it yet you cite me for the
> quote. Dumbass.



same difference...same idiot

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What we're talking about here is how to control
> speech so an atheist never ever again picks up a
> gun and starts shooting people.


No, we appear to be talking about controlling speech on DailyKos and Sarah Palin's web site so that people who read neither won't take actions that can, with huge stretches and leaps of logic, be indirectly/possibly tied to something that could have influenced an otherwise clearly insane person to take actions that were arguably in the same neighborhood of subject matter as what was on those web sites, as long as you accept that what was said/shown on the web sites were not metaphors or common everyday English terms, that Palin and DailyKos' campaign advocate ACTUALLY MEANT for people to use guns on their political opponents.

I think I summed up the arguments of the thread, and none the thread contributes anything meaningful. Some nutcase cracked and shot up his congressperson and a bunch of bystanders. It is as simple as that. If he had picked his mailman for his insanity focus instead of his congresswoman no one here would be giving two shits about it, trying to find some deeper meaning. Some people are fucked in the head, and web sites that those people don't visit don't affect the outcome. Just sayin.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2011 07:47AM by justsayin.

Another mugshot
Attachments:

On 'TOP this morning (8 am national news), CBS conducted a poll to ascertain whether Americans thought political rhetoric had anything to do with the shootings. IIRC, 53 percent said no and only about 1/3 said yes.

Well, I guess that settles it then. Oh wait, here is another one:

Should the political rhetoric be toned down in America?

Yes, it has gotten out of hand (90 %)

No, this is part of a democracy (10 %)

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/poll/default.asp

Now I remember, polls on radio and tv shows are completely worthless.


ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On 'TOP this morning (8 am national news), CBS
> conducted a poll to ascertain whether Americans
> thought political rhetoric had anything to do with
> the shootings. IIRC, 53 percent said no and only
> about 1/3 said yes.

Is Voter____ a pathetic shill for the liberal left?

Yes, of course 114.05%

No, he's just showing his "emotional" side 4.5%

Those polls aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you know. You can believe rhetoric didn't cause the shooting and still think it has gotten out of hand.

Also, on the CBS poll I'd like to know the actual question, because "had anything to do with" is different from "responsible for."

Yes, I just picked the closest poll from Ed's web site because his polls are always outrageously slanted. I was only trying to demonstrate how you can't determine anything from the "non-scientific" media polls--not to refute the actual finding.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those polls aren't necessarily mutually exclusive,
> you know. You can believe rhetoric didn't cause
> the shooting and still think it has gotten out of
> hand.
>
> Also, on the CBS poll I'd like to know the actual
> question, because "had anything to do with" is
> different from "responsible for."

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I guess that settles it then. Oh wait, here
> is another one:
>
> Should the political rhetoric be toned down in
> America?

I don't get involved much in political discussions here but I have observed you as being one of the rhetoric posters here. Try starting with yourself and we'll see if others follow.

Examples, please?

justsayin Wrote:
>
> I don't get involved much in political discussions
> here but I have observed you as being one of the
> rhetoric posters here. Try starting with yourself
> and we'll see if others follow.

Voter_____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Examples, please?

Examples?? So why is the left so shocked when they do the same EXACT thing! F’n hypocrites to the end. It’s time the left to own up to there part and its time for the Right to stop apologizing. You want to talk about hate speech just watch MSNBC any day of the week. Its bullshit no matter how you slice it. Maybe the Sheriff should look to himself and his deputies for failing to provide adequate security instead of passing blame to those that had no hand in it.

It's a bullshit argument to pretend like both sides are the same. Of course there are crazies on the left, and plenty of people have used rhetoric that is inflammatory. The critical difference is that Democrats don't celebrate those people and elevate them to top leadership positions. Some blogger or Daily Kos contributor writing something isn't the same as Sarah Palin or New Gingrich doing it. My issue isn't so much with the gun metaphors--though I do think those are in poor judgement. I think that when party leaders like Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc. suggest that the government and elected officials are somehow illegitimate, or that if armed revolution is okay if you don't get the result you like at the ballot box, then they are setting up events like this to happen.

CopKiller Wrote:
> Examples?? So why is the left so shocked when
> they do the same EXACT thing! F’n hypocrites to
> the end. It’s time the left to own up to there
> part and its time for the Right to stop
> apologizing. You want to talk about hate speech
> just watch MSNBC any day of the week. Its bullshit
> no matter how you slice it. Maybe the Sheriff
> should look to himself and his deputies for
> failing to provide adequate security instead of
> passing blame to those that had no hand in it.

I am so far behind... what are the GOP job titles of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich now? I don't recall them being elevated to leadership positions, I thought they were independent voices but please enlighten as I'm sure this argument, as do all your arguments, hold water nicely.

Voter_____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a bullshit argument to pretend like both
> sides are the same. Of course there are crazies
> on the left, and plenty of people have used
> rhetoric that is inflammatory. The critical
> difference is that Democrats don't celebrate those
> people and elevate them to top leadership
> positions. Some blogger or Daily Kos contributor
> writing something isn't the same as Sarah Palin or
> New Gingrich doing it. My issue isn't so much
> with the gun metaphors--though I do think those
> are in poor judgement. I think that when party
> leaders like Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc.
> suggest that the government and elected officials
> are somehow illegitimate, or that if armed
> revolution is okay if you don't get the result you
> like at the ballot box, then they are setting up
> events like this to happen.

You mean like after the 2000 election when the left was outrageously going after Bush and saying he wasn't our President? Right? Like there wasn't enough foam flecked invective being thrown about back then to cause some loon to go the postal route.

The guy was a loon. He could have decided that his favorite morning cartoon character losing yet again was one too many times and that pushed him over the edge. He could have had his girl friend leave him - who knows. But yeah, a loon with a gun is never a pretty sight, especially when they decide to go out and shoot folks up.

Again, both sides apply the behavior at various times.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am so far behind... what are the GOP job titles
> of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich now? I don't
> recall them being elevated to leadership
> positions, I thought they were independent voices
> but please enlighten as I'm sure this argument, as
> do all your arguments, hold water nicely.


No they don't work directly for the actual party, but come on you're just being obtuse.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, both sides apply the behavior at various
> times.


So you accept that the right is guilty of overly-heated, uncalled-for, and patently false rhetoric right now?

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/Bush
> _effigy_photo.jpg


That dude with the noose is Harry Reid? Barack Obama? Howard Dean? Please help me, because I'm not sure how that contrasts with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or Sharron Angle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

justsayin Wrote:
> No, we appear to be talking about controlling
> speech on DailyKos and Sarah Palin's web site so
> that people who read neither won't take actions
> that can, with huge stretches and leaps of logic,
> be indirectly/possibly tied to something that
> could have influenced an otherwise clearly insane
> person to take actions that were arguably in the
> same neighborhood of subject matter as what was on
> those web sites, as long as you accept that what
> was said/shown on the web sites were not metaphors
> or common everyday English terms, that Palin and
> DailyKos' campaign advocate ACTUALLY MEANT for
> people to use guns on their political opponents.

I NEED 50cc's OF PUNCTUATION, STAT

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again, both sides apply the behavior at various
> > times.
>
>
> So you accept that the right is guilty of
> overly-heated, uncalled-for, and patently false
> rhetoric right now?

No, I am saying both sides use the rhetoric. Whether it is patently false or not is not even worth evaluating at this point - as I figure ALL politicians lie almost all the time. In any case, both sides use the rhetoric, and again, it has nothing to do with this event. If the guy had said he was going to kill folks because Sarah Palin told him too, then you might have a point - but it appears other than being a loon, this guy may have been bent because his representative didn't fully support Nancy Pelosi. And she lies ALL the time.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University